by R. Joseph Hoffmann. I found his comments on the changes in the theory and motivation for marriage to enlightening. He says, essentially that the primary purpose of marriage in religion is procreation in order to ensure survival of the group. When survival was not long an issue, we developed the romantic theory of marriage. Although he sees Mormon polygamy within that framework I am not sure that really works. It seems to me Joseph Smith's greater need was sex and dominance, particularly dominance.

Thoughts?

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/quodlibet-of-gay-and-plural-marriage/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/29/2013 11:37PM by robertb.

At least not religiously coerced polygyny.

It'll be all right. don't worry about it.



all these horrible rules bishops life choices coerced social pressure make a dread- of someone being somewhere they dont' want to be with no choice.

different forms of marraige or relationship will be allright.
people will chose them and experience them and express themselves as meet their needs and their own desires (and not be allowed to maintain relationship that do not respect and promote their partners desires and needs as well.)

please note: that was partners, not parents. And this dread of mean ness and unfair ness and unfair rules- may lay the ground work for distrust. Distrust of love and lovers and marraige forms generating unfairness (just like the mormon church bishops) and unkindness (just like forced activities and sex roles in mormon dogma)

all other marraige forms will only work or be participated in if they meet- individuals- needs- and ultimately serve their desires. With willing partners. sequentially or in a group or in a solo set.

People may worry about it because life- in the mormon church or their past- gave them something to worry about.


don't worry about it. It'll be alright.

so, we probably do not need anthropology or cultural anthropology or biopsychology or even neurology studies to justify it. What if its a move up? What if having the freedom to explore and discover - IS transcendance. What if mutual supportive relationships generate sufficient resources, security, to facilitate transcedence of past cognitive limitations, skill sets, talent development or human potential. (why do they put young illectuals into rooms near by one another with social rooms yet offer food lines in even prestigious universities? why did they make group housing pods at prestigious research universities in coed form? if something isn't inherent in humanity- social procilivity- social support- sexuality- inherent needs met- promoting- producing- more human productivity or creativity.)

transcendence. Did Leonardo DeVinci live alone always & do his own cooking with no acquaintances? did whoever was Shakespeare have no social network? slave at the stove unable to write night after night stuck in a sex role? I THINK NOT.
There are many social forms that would promote growth.

I think that's what the research will show.

I mostly agree with your assessment about Joseph Smith, although some of his marriages certainly did have a dynastic aspect about them.

By the time of Brigham Young, however, I think the Mormon practice mirrored the way polygamy has been (and still is) being practiced all over the world: as a symbol of the status and power of the ruling elite.